It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Truth behind Taiwan's legal status

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Taiwan is NOT a part of China

A. History

The notion that Taiwan is a part of China is taken as a matter of faith among China’s government and most of its citizens. It is also similarly taken as a matter of faith among the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which formerly ruled the islad and still retains a strong presence in local Taiwanese politics. However, rarely is an actual examination taken of the legitimacy and legal veracity of these claims.

The indigenous population of the island is proto-Austronesian peoples who are believed to be the progenitors of the Malayo-Polynesian peoples who have spread through Southeast Asia and as far west as Madagascar and as far east as Hawaii, Easter Island, and perhaps even mainland South America. They had lived in Taiwan in relative isolation, with only limited and infrequent Chinese contacts, as late as the 16th century.

As the 17th century dawned, Taiwan was still out of the realm of China. China had never established governmental authority east of the Pescadores Island chain in the Taiwan Strait. Even that authority was short-lived. In 1624, the Dutch established a trade outpost in the Pescadores. This elicited the opposition of the Ming Chinese government, who ousted the Dutch. The Ming, however, offered no objection to the Dutch using southern Taiwan as an outpost because they conceded that it was outside their jurisdiction.

A half-Japanese pirate, and Ming loyalist, by the name of Koxinga (Jheng Chenggong) led a naval raid on the Dutch settlement at Anping (present-day Tainan) and ousted the Dutch in 1660. However, the Ming Dynasty had fallen nearly two decades earlier and he had no authority from the Ming remnants fighting a losing battle in southwestern China at the time. Thus, it cannot be said that Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan was assumed at that time. Shortly thereafter, the Manchus from a region northeast of China took complete control of the country. In 1683, they added Taiwan to their list of conquests and made it a part of their empire. This is the first time in history that Taiwan and China were a part of the same political entity, and the reality is that both were conquered and occupied by an outside power, the Manchus.

Now, we fast forward to the 1880s. The Manchus still controlled both China and Taiwan and attempted to make Taiwan more integrated with their empire. The fact is that most of Taiwan still lay outside of their control as late as the 1870s as the east coast and the mountain areas were outside their jurisdiction. Taiwan was made a province of the Qing Dynasty in 1886 and they made a short-lived effort to modernize the island. However, the corrupt empress dowager, Cixi, put a stop to it. Regardless, it did not matter as the fate of Taiwan would be decided far from its shores. China managed to get itself into a war with Japan, a war that Japan was itching for, but a war that China provoked and was completely ill-prepared for. The cause was intervention in Korea. The resulting Treaty of Shimonoseki transferred sovereignty of Taiwan to Japan in perpetuity, meaning forever.

Taiwan became a part of the Japanese empire. Japan tried to turn Taiwan into an integral part of the country. Taiwan’s economy and educational system were developed to an extent not seen in other territories occupied by Japan. Sure, there were Japanese atrocities in Taiwan, especially against the aboriginal population who resisted Japanese rule. However, on balance, Japanese rule over Taiwan was relatively benign, even to the extent that a limited degree of self-rule was introduced in the 1930s.

Japan invaded China in 1937, beginning the Asian phase of what became World War II. A variety of documents emerged from this war what will be addressed later in this essay. However, virtually all of China’s claims that Taiwan belongs to it stem from this eight-year conflict. Japan was defeated by the Allied powers (which included China) in 1945. KMT forces from China came to Taiwan to accept Japan’s surrender on behalf of the Allied powers. The San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed in 1951 (taking effect the following year) which formally ended the war in the Pacific.

B. China’s claim

As mentioned in the above section, China’s claims to Taiwan mostly stem from World War II and the agreements and treaties that were signed as a result of the conflict. The notion that Taiwan is a part of China rests on four agreements and a basic theory of international law known as “state succession.”

American President Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Churchill and Republic of China Generalissimo Chiang Kaishek (Jiang Jhongjheng) met in Cairo, Egypt in November, 1943. The Cairo Declaration was a joint declaration that the territories “stolen” by Japan are to be returned to China following the end of the war. Taiwan was one of the territories referenced.

Less than two years later, after the war in Europe was concluded, there was a meeting near Berlin including the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union. They reaffirmed the content of the Cairo Declaration in that meeting and demanded Japan’s unconditional surrender.

Japanese representatives signed an Instrument of Surrender on September 2, 1945 in which they stated an acceptance to accept the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation. Japanese and American military commanders were the only signatories.

Finally, a bilateral treaty was signed between the Republic of China government (by then in exile in Taiwan) and Japan in 1952. In it, Japan signified that it had “returned” Taiwan to the Republic of China. This document is used by the KMT to bolster its claim that Taiwan is a part of China.

This document is NOT used by the PRC, however. In fact, they do not even recognize its legitimacy. They use another rationale to support their claim. They claim that Taiwan was “returned” to China on either September 2, 1945 (with the signing of the Instrument of Surrender) or on October 25, 1945 when KMT troops accepted Japan’s surrender in Taiwan. Theoretically, as Taiwan was a part of China when the Communist Party won the civil war in 1949, and under the successor state theory, all agreements signed by the previous government (including boundaries) are binding on the successor government.

C. Examination of International Law on State-to-State Transfer of Territory

However, when these claims are illuminated under the light of international law, their argument is shown to be built on shifting sands.

According to international law, there is only one mechanism by which territory can be transferred from one state to another: a legally ratified and binding peace treaty. This is confirmed by state practice, the leading source of international law in the pre-World War II era.

The Treaty of Shimonoseki, the very treaty in which Taiwan was transferred to Japanese control in the first place, includes a specific mention of that transfer. Article two of that treaty provided for the transfer of Taiwan to Japan. The transfer is specifically referenced as is the beneficiary power.

The Versailles Treaty ended World War I and was signed in Paris in 1919. In this treaty, territory transfers and new boundaries were specifically spelled out. All territorial transfers were specifically referenced with both the surrendering power and beneficiary being specifically referenced at all points in the document.

Japan completely defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Japan already occupied territory that it was granted by the Treaty of Portsmouth (N.H.) in 1905. However, all of the territories to be transferred as well as the beneficiary (Japan) are specifically mentioned in the document, although common sense would inform someone that it was not necessary.

The 1848 Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo was signed by the United States and Mexico when the former had already occupied a significant amount of territory of the later in a war that was begun when Mexican troops crossed into U.S. territory. Regardless, Mexican territory that was transferred to the United States was specifically spelled out in the treaty.

The 1898 Treaty of Paris concluded the Spanish-American War. At the conclusion of the war, the U.S. physically occupied Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Cuba, all Spanish colonies at the onset of the war. This treaty is very useful in pointing out the power of the mechanism to transfer territory from one state to another. On the one hand, the transfer of the Philippines and Puerto Rico to American sovereignty is specifically mentioned in the treaty. However, there is no such mention of Cuba being designated as being U.S. territory. Consequently, shortly thereafter, Cuba was granted independence rather than being incorporated as a U.S. territory as were Puerto Rico and the Philippines.

There are countless more examples where these came from, but the point has been sufficiently made that territory can only be transferred from one state to another through the peace treaty.

D. Implications for China’s Claim on Taiwan

The provisions of Cairo and Potsdam are properly regarded as unfulfilled wartime commitments. Three allies announced their plans to give Taiwan to China following the war, but those promises were never formalized in a peace treaty. Remember, there were dozens of countries in the anti-Japan alliance. Three, no matter their size and importance, have no legal legitimacy in making decisions of this nature for the entire alliance.

The Instrument of Surrender is a little closer because it is the first document that is accepted by Japan, the legal sovereign of Taiwan since 1895. However, it was only signed by military commanders of two countries, and had no provisions for ratification because it was technically no more than a cease-fire agreement.

There was a treaty that was signed to end this war. It is a treaty that is all but ignored by China and the Chinese KMT here in Taiwan. In fact, the KMT has prevented it from even being presented in school textbooks here in Taiwan. That is the San Francisco Peace Treaty. This treaty was signed by Japan and about two dozen Allied Powers in 1951. It then went through the ratification process in each and all of the signatory powers before it came into effect in 1952. This treaty has a provision concerning Taiwan. Japan surrendered their sovereign claim over Taiwan as a result of this agreement. However, there is absolutely no provision whatsoever for Taiwan being transferred to China, a clause deemed necessary by public international law to effectuate the transfer of sovereignty. So, simply stated, there is absolutely no legitimacy to the claim by China or the Chinese KMT in Taiwan that Taiwan was handed over to China following World War II.

There is still one more treaty to discuss, the Treaty of Taipei between the ROC and Japan. That treaty was signed AFTER Japan had already given up sovereignty over the island. There is absolutely no legal argument that can be made for Japan designating sovereignty over a territory it had already given up in a bilateral treaty with a government that was not even a party to the treaty that ended the war. The territory had already been disposed of. Japan has no further legal right to have any input as to the future disposition of the territory in question.

E. Where Does that Leave Taiwan?

That is the big question. Unlike Korea, the treaty did not declare Taiwan an independent state. The reality is that Taiwan was neither ceded to a state nor was it declared independent. There is only one solution to this state of affairs. In accordance with the United Nations Charter, Taiwan should have been permitted to exercise its rights in self-determination. The only way to accurately gauge the will of the Taiwanese people would have been through a plebiscite shortly after the ratification of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The KMT’s denial of that right to the Taiwanese people rendered it an outlaw regime. In fact, the KMT engaged in four decades of repression and murder to prevent Taiwanese people from telling their story to the world.

Today, the rest of the world needs to wake up to the reality of the situation. Many states declare a “one-China” policy without any regard for the legality of their political statements. Essentially, Taiwan is being sacrificed on the alter of “one-China.” This is nothing in international law that supports this position nor is there anything in morality. China is a despotic regime while Taiwan is a peaceful state that has become one of the greatest economic and democratic success stories in Asia. It is time for the world to step up and recognize the rights of Taiwan’s people as they did for the people of East Timor in 1999. Taiwanese have the legal right to a plebiscite on the future status of the island without undue coercion from China.




posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   
This will come as absolutely no surprise, but

"Hear, hear!"



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
This will come as absolutely no surprise, but

"Hear, hear!"


Watch the Chinese completely ignore this thread and hope it goes away.

BTW, nice picture of Linda Park.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
It was nice to have more Asians in Star Trek. The Russo-American thing is just over done. Which is why I like Firefly/Serenity, America eventual joined with China and formed a Sino-American alliance, its great when a space cowboy walks into a bar on some moon and asks for a beer in Mandarin.

Japan signed the treaty of San Fran with the spirit on the Potsdam declaration in mind, your trying to utilize the word of the law to defeat the spirit of the law and the law was that Taiwan was to be given back to China and that were the intentions of every Allied leader, the fact that the Treaty of San Francisco left it out was only because we drove Chiang Kai Shek to Taiwan and America did not wish to add any more legitimacy to China at that time especially with the Korean War going on (or about to start anyways).

I think things would've worked out much better had the US supported us instead of Chiang, we were far more suscpetible to Western Ideals back then, infact during the Unified Front, we tried to get everyone, regardless of social strata to fight the Japanese.

Had the US given us guns and money and supplies rather then giving to Chiang we would've not have had to have gone through the Great Leap Forward in the circumstances we did, TGLF happened so we could shake free of dependence on either Western of Soviet powers. And thus the GLF it is possible would've been more conservative and with more outside support.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
Japan signed the treaty of San Fran with the spirit on the Potsdam declaration in mind, your trying to utilize the word of the law to defeat the spirit of the law and the law was that Taiwan was to be given back to China and that were the intentions of every Allied leader, the fact that the Treaty of San Francisco left it out was only because we drove Chiang Kai Shek to Taiwan and America did not wish to add any more legitimacy to China at that time especially with the Korean War going on (or about to start anyways).


Okay. Small point.

The Korean War began on June 25 1950 with a surprise attack by the North. The US, as for South Korea, were caught completely unaware.

So, your statement that the Allies did not wish to add extra legitimacy to the PRC with the Korean War going on is possibly correct.

But the idea that they knew Korea was about to start and that somehow they knew China would get involved is clearly impossible because

a) They had no idea about the war starting and

b) When China did get involved it was a shock to Macarthur.

However, the idea of not giving legitimacy to the PRC could hold water. However, not the idea of giving more legitmacy to the PRC as the US gave it none to begin with.

The PLA entered the Korean War on October 25, 1950.

So therefore, at the time of the signing of the San Francisco Treaty, the US, under the banner of the UN along with its WW2 allies, was in a shooting war with the PRC on the Korean Peninsula.

Couple that with the fact that the ROC held the UN seat and not the PRC and there is legally no-one on mainland China with whom the US can sign a treaty regarding the fate of Taiwan.

Which in no way gives sovereignty to the PRC.

In either spirit or letter.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
Had the US given us guns and money and supplies rather then giving to Chiang we would've not have had to have gone through the Great Leap Forward in the circumstances we did,

OR the US could've given more guns and money and outright invaded china and attacked communist camps and then China couldv'e gone nationalist, and never even bothered with the disasterous "Great Leap" at all.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
And that would've meant interfearing in China's civil war in a time when the Administration was more concerned with Soviet advances in Europe, what do you think the SU would've done had you sent in 500,000-1,000,000 men in China with all the logistical and air support to go with it? Europe would've become satalleits to the Soviet Union. Such an action you suggest corners on hatred and of course has gone far past the line of retardedly stupid.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
what do you think the SU would've done had you sent in 500,000-1,000,000 men in China with all the logistical and air support to go with it? Europe would've become satalleits to the Soviet Union.


Why? You're forgetting that the Allies, minus the USSR, had enough men to defeat two enemies in two theatres. The Allied forces used in the Pacific campaign would have been enough, who needs to depopulate the armed forces of Western Europe to supply such a conflict?

The late 1940s/early 1950s was the one time when the Allies could have defeated a non-nuclear USSR. Allied Air forces were far superior to those of the USSR, allied infantry weapons were generally superior, only the T34-85 was superior to its Allied counterpart, the Sherman. But the Brits had already fielded the Centurion.


Such an action you suggest corners on hatred and of course has gone far past the line of retardedly stupid.


Looking for a warn? Such a statement shows little more than near-sighted nationalism. The GLF was a disaster, exceeded only by the Cultural Revolution. Why is having the KMT rule China retardedly stupid? Taiwan has many parralels with South Korea, a dictatorship that metamorphosed into a lively and economically successful democracy. Why couldn't they have done that in China?



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Why? You're forgetting that the Allies, minus the USSR, had enough men to defeat two enemies in two theatres. The Allied forces used in the Pacific campaign would have been enough, who needs to depopulate the armed forces of Western Europe to supply such a conflict?

The late 1940s/early 1950s was the one time when the Allies could have defeated a non-nuclear USSR. Allied Air forces were far superior to those of the USSR, allied infantry weapons were generally superior, only the T34-85 was superior to its Allied counterpart, the Sherman. But the Brits had already fielded the Centurion.


And the Russians had the Iosif Stalin III and the west could never really counter it, infact my sources; Liddel Hart, Heinz Gudarian, Manstein and others on their view of the Red Army in the 40's believed that between 1945-1950 was the best time for the SU to attack the west fielding, some 300 Divisions each Rifle Division had 1-2 tank brigades an each tank division had 1 heavy tank brigade with engineers. This was just after some 200 useless peasant rifle divisions were demobilized and switched to logistical support and economic repairs.

As for the number of planes the numbers escape me but easily outnumbering the Allies in the west and could easily take out every single allied airfield since as "allies" they had access to that intelligence. The reasons why they didn't attack was the same reason why the Allies didn't, it would've been the breaking point.

While it is true that in the 40's Stalin prefered Chiang to Mao since he wanted to keep the Allies happy and maintain a neutral China to act as a buffer zone, but this was to keep the Allies away from "Mother Russia" and had the West put troops into China it would've risked the wraith of the Soviet Union as it would've put Siberia at risk to allied incursion and would've pushed Nat China into the allied camp.

As for the Centurian, it doesn't matter if they were beginning to produce them the Soviets had thousands of T-34's, upgraded T-34's at that and the Russian school of strategy of "shock attacks"(the old Russian school of thought dated back to Peter the Great) where its done from what I remember aggressive shock attacks on extended enemy positions would've obliterated the loose Firepower mobility focus doctrines of the west.

Russian equipment was as good or better then their Allied counter parts, at this time they had radios for the majority of their units, and had the numbers and the production capacity to carry it out.



Then lets consider the Eastern Theatre, in China Mao from 1945-1949 had defeated a GMD Army far vastly suporior to his own and turned the tide winning the civil war 5 years ahead of scheduel. American support would be limited at first and even when it did come it would've arrived inforce at the very beginning of the routing of Chiang's forces from Manchuria, and would not have been their in time to stop it. And, the US had plenty of advisors advising Chiang and advised against over extending his forces but Chiang didn't listen and did little to help.

America in actuallity does not have the ability to ship large amounts of troops from Europe to China in the time needed to win before it became too late and keep a defencive deterrant vs Russia. They simply did not have enough ships to ship both supplies and material to Nationalist controled China, air power would've been ineffective as supplies would always be short and the number of plances to bring to bear would be small do to the threat of the SU, infact I may be so bold as to state that if US troops were in China victory would've been far surer as American troops would've insulted and harrased the local Chinese pushing even faster into supporting us.

American troops would not have been able to stop the miserable treatment Chiang's own soldiers recieved from his botched job at running his portion of China and thus would not have stopped the massed desertions into our open arms, also theirs the matter of intelligence, we had sympathizers and spies in every level of Chianf Kai Sheks command and knew every move before even himself knew it and Chiang in turn had absolutely no spies within our ranks due to the excellent job of our own Counter Intelligence officers and Political Commisars.

The US is a open democracy, you have no idea how easy it is to infiltrate back then, and you sorely lacked the experience to prevent spying within the ranks of your local allies, as proven in the Korean War and in the Vietnam conflict.

Intellignce, mobility, determination and willpower were all in our hands, even equipment we made due with mostly stolen US equipment as Chaing Kai Sheks transport Corps gave us most of the equipment meant for the Nationalists, Russia didn't actively support us until victory was already won. But if US troops entered the field we would've no doubt recieved a good many AK-47's, T-34's, and Migs and Yaks as well as supplies and trucks and the logistics personal to handle them.

Its even possible that at this point shoudl've war had flared up between the West and the Soviet Union with the prescence of US troops in China, the Russian Shock Armies in Manchuria would've came to our assistance and thus at most 200,000 US troops with only limited air support would face off against 1.5 Million Red Army troops and some 1,000,000 PLA troops. Both battle hardened armies while Chiang's troops were mostly green and soft from lack of fighting.

And remember my sources come from the greatest tactical minds of WWII.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   
ludahai,

I only have one question. Who are the taiwanese?

You answer that and i will get back to the legal question

[edit on 30-12-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I can anwser that, Taiwan is composed of 98% Chinese of Han Ethnicity and less then 2% Taiwanese Aberiginionals.

Calling the Taiwanese a "people" does not detract from the People's Republic of China's claim to the Island as you would call them Taiwanese or a people as someone would call people from Moscow Moscowvites. Its a basic understanding of regional cultural differences, not nessasarily fundamental ethnic and cultural difference unless specificied as "separate".

ChinaWhite, I know you mean no harm, but argueing that kind of point vs Ludahai won't win the arguement any easier, infact may make it harder as it patronizes Ludahai's intelligence, that is a kind of philosohpical point one would make to BodeBliss or Oct or any one of the other Anti-China extremists that used to frequent these boards.

Ludahai is reasonable enough that she/he can be swayed to our viewpoint if we provide a consise and powerful enough of an arguement.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
MK,

I ask that question because its connected to the topic. Most freedom/independence groups have some type of unique ethnic difference from another group.

Who are the taiwanse, is asking the question of why these people seek indendence and why they claim to be a country or a different ethnic group.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Off-topic territory ahead...


Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom

inally posted by HowlrunnerIV[/]
Why? You're forgetting that the Allies, minus the USSR, had enough men to defeat two enemies in two theatres. The Allied forces used in the Pacific campaign would have been enough, who needs to depopulate the armed forces of Western Europe to supply such a conflict?

The late 1940s/early 1950s was the one time when the Allies could have defeated a non-nuclear USSR. Allied Air forces were far superior to those of the USSR, allied infantry weapons were generally superior, only the T34-85 was superior to its Allied counterpart, the Sherman. But the Brits had already fielded the Centurion.


And the Russians had the Iosif Stalin III and the west could never really counter it,


In direct terms, no. The only effort to try, the British Conqueror, was pretty much a failure. Put Pershing and Centurion didn't have to outmuscle it, the western allies had learned, through the nasty shock of the Tiger, how to outfight a larger, harder-hitting enemy tank. Plus the Hawker Typhoon had become an almost specialist anti-tank plane. But perhaps you should find a thing called the ARL44 Heavy Tank, the first time in history the French had produced a decent tank, and, wonder of wonders, designed in secret under occupation and capable of taking JS2, because it had been designed to counter Panzers.


As for the number of planes the numbers escape me but easily outnumbering the Allies in the west


The PLAAF easily outnumbers western airforces as well, but let's face it, until 15 years ago it had no hope. This doesn't take into account the Royal Auxilliary Air Force. An entire combat fighter force, with combat experience, in reserve.


and could easily take out every single allied airfield since as "allies" they had access to that intelligence.


This claim is just strange. Western radar was far more advanced than Soviet radar and western fighters were far more advanced than Soviet fighters. Mustangs, Spitfires, Thunderbolts and Lightnings (and Shooting Stars, Meteors and Vampires) would have wiped out any Russian offensive bombing force, as they had done so successfully to the Luftwaffe.

In 1945 Western bombing forces included the B17, B29, Stirling, Lancaster (the heaviest bomber in the European thaetre of WW2) and would soon include the Canberra, the world's first in-service jet bomber. Qualitatively the West was leaps and bounds ahead of the USSR. Lend-lease was giving the USSR such combat deathtraps as P39 Airacobra. When MiG 15 turned up over NK it was proven to be a slightly better jet in three aspects (ceiling, armament and dive-speed) but its pilots didn't match up. Not yours and not the Russians.


and would've pushed Nat China into the allied camp.


Okay, that one I don't get.


As for the Centurian, it doesn't matter if they were beginning to produce them


My example here is that the Brits had them on the continent in transit to the front when the surrender was signed. They were in production, production that could have continued at war-time rates with no difficulty.


the Soviets had thousands of T-34's, upgraded T-34's at that


Yes, I believe that's what I meant by T34-85, as in fielding an 85mm gun instead of a 76mm gun. Centurian carried a 17-pounder, the same gun as in the Sherman Firefly and the same gun used to kill Tigers.

However, the Russians had some serious inventory gaps, including an APC. Despite seeing half-tracks all over the Western USSR, the Soviets waited until after the war to design one. Western Europe was awash in M3 half-tracks.


Russian equipment was as good or better then their Allied counter parts, at this time they had radios for the majority of their units, and had the numbers and the production capacity to carry it out.


The west had radios for every unit...


The US is a open democracy, you have no idea how easy it is to infiltrate back then,



Huh? I was born in, grew up in and live in an open democracy...why would you make such a claim to me about knoweldge?


And remember my sources come from the greatest tactical minds of WWII.


Umm, no. Basil Liddel Hart is not a great tactical mind from WW2. He is a great tactical mind from the inter-war years, theorising on the most effective use of the tank. Lessons his fellow Brits did not listen to, but the Germans, such as Guderian, did.

Lessons the western generals (notably Patton) used to excellent effect in France.

But lessons that were limited in their value by 1945. The place that offensive tank tactics work the best has always been the desert. See Rommel's north African holiday, the Israelis touring Sinai and the UN walking through Kuwait.

Never forget that western military leaders included such visionaries as Generals Hobart and Martell. The men who designed tanks in the interwar years and led design bureaus in the lead-up to D-Day (Hobart's Funnies) and, in Martell's case, the man who nearly gave Rommel a defeat in France in 1940, despite having inferior tanks.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   
First of all i would like to say that china does not include chinas history or a specifc ethnic group but it refers to the people within in the PRC.


Watch the Chinese completely ignore this thread and hope it goes away.


If you put a thread in this place which gets a visit every month you will not hope for people to find it. Next time you want a answer to something give me a U2U and i will gradly do it


A half-Japanese pirate, and Ming loyalist, by the name of Koxinga (Jheng Chenggong) led a naval raid on the Dutch settlement at Anping (present-day Tainan) and ousted the Dutch in 1660. However, the Ming Dynasty had fallen nearly two decades earlier and he had no authority from the Ming remnants fighting a losing battle in southwestern China at the time. Thus, it cannot be said that Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan was assumed at that time.


Wow,

In one paragraph you managed to disrespect a chinese hero and the role he played in taiwan. Zheng Chenggong was not a pirate, He was in the goddamn Ming army and a high offical. His father was a pirate and also the commander of all Ming forces at one stage, He was also the richest man in china at the time. He wanted his son to have a education and everything he wanted so Zheng Chenggong was taught by private tutours and taught to love poetry and was a scholar at first. He is a chiense hero because of his stance againest a foriegn power.

Now lets go into his other name Konxinga. It means "Lord with the royal last name". It was given to him by the then acting emperor of china. Right away it tells you he had significance within the Ming court.

When he ousted the the dutch from their little outpost he did it for the Ming dynasty and had every authority to claim the island for the Ming, which he did. Because he was a Ming general and could act with out a response from the Ming emperor. So when he conquered taiwan he conquered it for the Mig and later on china.

While the Ming were on the run and weren't in control of beijing at this point the they still admisited a lot of terrioty and still were waging war againest the Qing in Yunnan and later on in Burma. They had emperors and such with lower amount of imperil blood(two of which were appointed in Nanjing it is ignorant to say or think that the Ming ended in beijing


In 1624, the Dutch established a trade outpost in the Pescadores. This elicited the opposition of the Ming Chinese government, who ousted the Dutch. The Ming, however, offered no objection to the Dutch using southern Taiwan as an outpost because they conceded that it was outside their jurisdiction.


When you ask this you must ask what do you say as in chinese?. It was not administored by the Ming but was used by pirates as a staging post to ship their silk trade and spieces to japan from china. Because if you say that the dutch actually took over a chiense settlement already their and later on attracted other people to that trade outpost.

But if thats what your saying taiwan would effectively be under the rule of Zheng Zhilong and thus become under the influence of a chinese person. China at the time was under turmoil and corruption was the norm to survive. So the Ming enlisted the help of pirates to keep control and could be called warlords. A Ming ally is also Ming terrioty.

When the dutch went looking for a spot to trade they asked the Ming officals where to. They said taiwan hoping the dutch would help get rid of the pirates aswell. two birds for one stone.

Treaties

At the time the Qing dynasty did not control the china they had on the maps but there were serval rebellions all over china. At any one time 1/5~2/5 of Chian would be under different hands. The Manchus signed a treaty with the japanese not the chinese.

As of now the PRC nor the KMT reconizes the vailty of the Treaty of Shimonoseki and any other treaty the Manchus signed with the western countries which was forced upon them. At the time of the signing of Shimonoseki. Most of china was in uproar denoucing the treaty and they did not accept it. How can the Manchu sign off something from the people they did not represent.

You found a technically in the law which was draw up after 1945. If this is the whole foundation for taiwanese independence it is very weak. It is not even a strong case because the Pan-green would be waving it around like they found a elixir.

--------------------------

Lets just say the Treaty of Shimonoseki has validity. When the SFPT was signed the japanese signed off all those treaties they had signed with the Qing dynasty and all those claims they could make for better trading with asian countries.

When the japanese gave up their treaties it reverted back to a stage like nothing ever happened to those countries polictically or technically. This section is before the section where japan gave up her land. With the treaties section before the giving up of the land section. The giving up claims to land becomes null. I guess the SFPT is all that you are basing this on isn't it?

After 1945 the KMT took over the taiwan to administor it which was under the control of taiwan and cannot be claimed to be terra nullius because it had a government system inplace when the SFPT was ratified. Im not going to even get in to the validity of the SFPT because it was made under the conditions and againest a certian country when it was made.

--------------------------.

Now tell me what treaties the british or the spanish or the americans signed to the native populations when they took their land?. Why does treaties apply to some instancews and not others.

Why dont the migrant australians from post 1788 australia just give up the land and let the aboriginals live their. Where were the treaties or should i be asking where are the treaties now?.


And still retains a strong presence in local Taiwanese politics


While from the recent pre-election we saw how strong this hold was.

KMT wins in a landslide

KMT crushes DPP in landslide victory

Now that tells you something about how much the taiawnese want independence or economic progress. After all the hate you said before about the KMT they managed to beat the almightly DPP which has not delivered economic progress or polictical reforms. Wait until the real election to see the real results.

Conclusion

I asked you this before but why are the taiwanese wanting independence?. Because they are a different ethnic group or were they taught to hate communism or the CCP?.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Conclusion

I asked you this before but why are the taiwanese wanting independence?. Because they are a different ethnic group or were they taught to hate communism or the CCP?.


Flip that coin.

Why are the CCP so rabid to "hang on" to Taiwan? Because they have been taught lies termed as "history"?

Perhaps the Taiwanese want "independence" because your system of government is anathema to them. Because they no longer have a dictatorship and want to keep it that way? Because the CCP do not and never have ruled them and they want to keep it that way?

edit: damn spelling. And damn quotes in previos post. damn.


[edit on 2-1-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Dont get confused HowlrunnerIV,

CCP is not china



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Put Pershing and Centurion didn't have to outmuscle it, the western allies had learned, through the nasty shock of the Tiger, how to outfight a larger, harder-hitting enemy tank.


No they did not. They learnt how to fight againest the tiger tank. The russians at the time out-numbered the allies in men and machines in the european threater. The T-34 was a better tank in every aspect than the Sherman and in areas better than the Pather

The allies used a tactic with a ratio of 5:1 when 4 tanks distract and one go in from behind to try and kill was used for the pather and the tiger tank. This tactic was not at all effective from the ratio of kills to loses from the german engaments. Most tigers and pathers lost were due to shortages airpower and mechanical breakdowns. Not sherman tanks.

The T-34/85 out performs the pather in a few areas while just being out classed in others. How the hell are 5 shermans going to fight off 5 T-34s if the sherman crews used 5:1 to a Pather?

No tank in development in the west could have defeated the JS3


But perhaps you should find a thing called the ARL44 Heavy Tank, the first time in history the French had produced a decent tank, and, wonder of wonders, designed in secret under occupation and capable of taking JS2, because it had been designed to counter Panzers.


Maybe you should recheck your history. The ARL44 was a flop. If you compare the statistics for each tank you would find that the IS-2 beats the ARL 44 by a large margin. From my readings on soviet tanks a IS-2 was never penerated by a Panther from the frontal arc of the turnnet or the hull front

But the thing i am wondering about is how there could be enough ARL-44s to beat the thousands of IS-2s alredy in service with the ARL-44 only achieving 60tanks by 1950?.

We should actually compare it to the IS-3 which was the actual soviet tank of that time period. It was even produced earlier han the ARL-44 and outclassed the ARL-22 in armour protection and penertation of armour by a large margin

Armour
IS-3 - 240mm max
ALR-44 - 120mm Max

Gun
IS-3 122mm
ARL-44 90mm

The ARL-44 was based on the Char B1 chassis and had the same obsolete design. But that question hat i said before is how will it be produced to even have a 10:1 ratio agaienst soviet tanks



western fighters were far more advanced than Soviet fighters. Mustangs, Spitfires, Thunderbolts and Lightnings and Shooting Stars, Meteors and Vampires


You you know what fighters the soviets had?. La-7 Yak-3 Mig-3. I would suggest you read about the other side of the coin before you say something like far more advanced. What were they far more advanced in?

When your shooting stars came along the soviet had their own fighters in the works. How do you think they landed on the Mig-15 if they didn't experiemnt themselves?. This was done with mainly german technology but they came out in about 1946 and was as good as the western designs



In 1945 Western bombing forces included the B17, B29, Stirling, Lancaster (the heaviest bomber in the European thaetre of WW2)


And do you know how well the B-29 did in the korean war when the ratio of wasn't 10:1 but only 5:1?. They resort to very high alttitude bombing and night only attacks. The soviets didn't actually need bombers in the war with germany because their artillery was the key. In the attack on berlin the soviets dropped 1/2 the tonnage of allied air attacks on berlin in a short 1month attack

The americans and british needed stratgic bombers because they lacked the ground forces. The allied stratgic bombers at the time would have been useless with out the atomic bomb because they would have been travelling a way longer distance to the urals mountain in possible the most heavily defended place at the time



Qualitatively the West was leaps and bounds ahead of the USSR. When MiG 15 turned up over NK it was proven to be a slightly better jet in three aspects (ceiling, armament and dive-speed) but its pilots didn't match up. Not yours and not the Russians.


You contradict yourself. You said the west are leaps and bounds ahead of the soviets but how is the F-86 leaps and bounds ahead of the Mig-15 when the Mig was first in service and had better performance in a lot of areas and was practically equal in their perofrmaces

The Mig-15 was tested and was better than the F-86 in ceiling, armament and climb speed not ceiling, armament and dive-speed. The only short coming in deisgn was the armnement. Because it was designed to shoot down bombers it carried cannons which fired slower and had lower amount of ammounition.

But the american pilots in the korean war were aces from ww2 while the chinese pilots recived a average of 3~5hours(from memory) before they were pushed into the combat zone and still managed to get kills.

The Soviets sent secret pilots to help the chiense and koreans and they claimed to have killed more american pilots than they lost. They were called Honchos by the americans because they knew how to fly a plane well. All the american figures are distorted and have even admitted from research done after the war.

It was 800 during the war to a figure of 379 now.



However, the Russians had some serious inventory gaps, including an APC.


They won againest germany without them



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Anybody seen the map which will get us back to on-topic territory?


Originally posted by chinawhite
The T-34 was a better tank in every aspect than the Sherman and in areas better than the Pather


Where do I mention Sherman?


Most tigers and pathers lost were due to shortages airpower and mechanical breakdowns. Not sherman tanks.


Again with the Sherman.


The T-34/85 out performs the pather in a few areas while just being out classed in others. How the hell are 5 shermans going to fight off 5 T-34s if the sherman crews used 5:1 to a Pather?


Again with the Sherman. Again I ask you "Where did I mention Sherman?" And the Panther was designed and built as a direct result of German experiences with the T-34. It loses the title best tank in the war because it was knee-jerk reaction, not a peice of creative thinking.


No tank in development in the west could have defeated the JS3


you say so mate, that's your opinion.


Maybe you should recheck your history. The ARL44 was a flop.


First time I've heard that one. The reason the French only built them in limited numbers was because they had to rebuild their country first.


If you compare the statistics for each tank you would find that the IS-2 beats the ARL 44 by a large margin. From my readings on soviet tanks a IS-2 was never penerated by a Panther from the frontal arc of the turnnet or the hull front


Panther had a smaller gun than ARL44.


But the thing i am wondering about is how there could be enough ARL-44s to beat the thousands of IS-2s alredy in service with the ARL-44 only achieving 60tanks by 1950?.


Who said numbers? I thought we were discussing capabilities. You keep bringing numbers into arguments that are about ability or bringing ability into argumetns that are about numbers.


The ARL-44 was based on the Char B1 chassis and had the same obsolete design. But that question hat i said before is how will it be produced to even have a 10:1 ratio agaienst soviet tanks


The Chassis was no great problem, it was capable enough, it was the way the French distibuted men throughout the Char B1. Those problems were cured by ARL44.



western fighters were far more advanced than Soviet fighters. Mustangs, Spitfires, Thunderbolts and Lightnings and Shooting Stars, Meteors and Vampires


You you know what fighters the soviets had?. La-7 Yak-3 Mig-3. I would suggest you read about the other side of the coin before you say something like far more advanced. What were they far more advanced in?


Range, manouverability, armament, speed, protection...


When your shooting stars came along the soviet had their own fighters in the works. How do you think they landed on the Mig-15 if they didn't experiemnt themselves?. This was done with mainly german technology but they came out in about 1946 and was as good as the western designs


In the works, not in service. The allies had jets in service in 1944 and that wasn't done with any German technology. British industry in 1945 was being dedicated to jet production, the Russians were only just reading the paperwork.




In 1945 Western bombing forces included the B17, B29, Stirling, Lancaster (the heaviest bomber in the European thaetre of WW2)


And do you know how well the B-29 did in the korean war when the ratio of wasn't 10:1 but only 5:1?. They resort to very high alttitude bombing and night only attacks. The soviets didn't actually need bombers in the war with germany because their artillery was the key. In the attack on berlin the soviets dropped 1/2 the tonnage of allied air attacks on berlin in a short 1month attack


The Soviets didn't need any bombers because they were fighting tactically, not strategically and they were perfectly content to let Bomber Command die at night for them.


The americans and british needed stratgic bombers because they lacked the ground forces.


The allies needed strategic bombers because of a little thing called the English Channel.


The allied stratgic bombers at the time would have been useless with out the atomic bomb because they would have been travelling a way longer distance to the urals mountain in possible the most heavily defended place at the time


Mm-hmm. And there is no way those strategic bombers could have been used to drop napalm on Russian formations in the field?




Qualitatively the West was leaps and bounds ahead of the USSR. When MiG 15 turned up over NK it was proven to be a slightly better jet in three aspects (ceiling, armament and dive-speed) but its pilots didn't match up. Not yours and not the Russians.


You contradict yourself. You said the west are leaps and bounds ahead of the soviets but how is the F-86 leaps and bounds ahead of the Mig-15 when the Mig was first in service and had better performance in a lot of areas and was practically equal in their perofrmaces


Ah, so qualitative cannot refer to pilot skills? What?


The Mig-15 was tested and was better than the F-86 in ceiling, armament and climb speed not ceiling, armament and dive-speed. The only short coming in deisgn was the armnement. Because it was designed to shoot down bombers it carried cannons which fired slower and had lower amount of ammounition.


Quote from the US pilot who tested the MiG 15 flown by a defecting pilot:

"I could whip it with an F86 any day."

How can the MiG be better in armament and then the only short-coming of the design was the armament? What are you trying to say?

Most analysts will say that the six machine guns in the Sabre were a less effective armament than the cannon in the MiG, especially given the trend through WW2 to go from MGs to cannon. A trend only the US bucked and immediately got on board with following the Sabre.


But the american pilots in the korean war were aces from ww2 while the chinese pilots recived a average of 3~5hours(from memory) before they were pushed into the combat zone and still managed to get kills.


Doesn't matter where they got their experience, the fact is they were better.


The Soviets sent secret pilots to help the chiense and koreans and they claimed to have killed more american pilots than they lost. They were called Honchos by the americans because they knew how to fly a plane well. All the american figures are distorted and have even admitted from research done after the war.

It was 800 during the war to a figure of 379 now.


The same is true of Russian kill claims.

The same was true in WW2, most notably during the Battle of Britain. the Brits new exactly how many planes had been shot down fromt eh radar plots but went with the claims of the pilots for morale purposes.

Doesn't change the fact that the Russians got shot down too. Russian and Chinese kill claims would mean that every Sabre sent to Korea was shot down.



However, the Russians had some serious inventory gaps, including an APC.


They won againest germany without them


They won for same reason they beat Napolean. Old man winter was their friend and they knew it and Hitler was a strategic moron. No sane leader would focus on Stalingrad just because of its name. No sane leader would attack Russia as winter approached and with inferior numbers and no intelligence.

If The Soviets didn't need APCs why did they develop a series of them in such rapid succession after WW2?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Liddel Hart was one of the first theorizors of armoured warfare and had even suggest to use the ardennes to counter any shifflen type of attack because the French/British high Command felt it was impassable to armour.

Liddel Hart happens to have served as the "Captain that teaches Generals" role fairely well, advising Churchill throughout the war.

I have a book "The History of the Russian Red Army from 1920's to 1945" which includes a chapter on the Soviet Army from 1945+ and each chapter was written by a different General from WWII, including Liddel Hart, Gudarian, Manstein, Model, Student, and many others, including American generals. And the concensus reached by Liddel was that between 1945 and 1950 was the most oppurtune time for the Soviets to attack the west since their troops were by then more numeros, just as experianced, and just as well organized as the allies.

Also the Allies were so weak at this time from the war that there was no way they could've resisted it, they were outnumbered, the tactics they learned to beat the Germans are meaningless against the Russians who use both tactical flexibility with the numbers to secure success.

The rest I'll clarify on later.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
God damn blackouts. I had this ready to go, too.

Okay, a couple of (really small) points.

1. I believe I already said that about Basil Liddel Hart.

2. BLH was not a General.

3. Student was a specialist general of paratroops. His only two successful operations for the war were the assault on Holland/Belgium (including the taking of Eben Emael) and Crete. Perhaps you should look into what a slaughter the Brits/Aussies/Kiwis and Greeks under Freyburg made of the Falschirmjager. The words Phyrric Victory come to mind. Freeing Mussolini was the work of Skorzeny.

4. Show me a victory Model had against an enemy of parity. So he was a Field Marshall, do you know how many of them Hitler made after the fall of the Low Countries? To quote another author, he thoroughly debased the coin of the realm. Heinz Guderian was an inspired and inspiring leader. Model was not. Monty nearly beat him in Arnhem without tanks.

5. STAVKA and the Soviets were the most hidebound group of tacticians on earth. They were far more interested in remaining alive in the face of Stalin's paranoia and insanity than thinking of imaginative ways to victory. Stalin got rid of Zhukov, the victor of the Eastern Front. Apart from him anyone with a trace of brilliance was liquidated in the purges of the '30s, what was left were the donkeys and time-servers. Zhukov was lucky he was in Mongolia while all that happened. And then he was purged when he was no longer needed.

And Zhukov had a major blindspot. He would send his men across uncleared minefields. His reasoning being that those casualties would have been suffered in battle anyway. The whole point of clearing minefields is to save those casualties for the battle, not spend them uselessly prior to battle.

The US economy was thriving. It could produce thousands of ships, tanks, guns, truck, jeeps, planes, hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition and still pay for the reconstruction of Europe and Japan. It's industry hadn't been bombed and it's oil industry was the largest on earth.

AND it could supply the Soviets under Lend-Lease.

The Royal and US navies could have sailed into Murmansk virtually unopposed. They could also have walked into the Black Sea with virtually negligible opposition. The only fighting the Russians have done at sea was in 1904/5. Their super fleet was only taking shape in the 50s.

and one very small point (of language):


...the consensus reached by Liddel was that...


One man does not a consensus make. A consensus is the agreement of a group of voices.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join